Short Summary
In a trademark dispute concerning the brand 'BLENDERS PRIDE', the Delhi High Court allowed Pernod Ricard India Private Limited to introduce supplementary documentation. The petitioner sought these documents to rebut the respondent's denial regarding the well-known status and earlier adoption of their trademark. This interim order facilitates the ongoing litigation, allowing both parties to present a more complete factual record before the court.
Detailed Summary
of the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request for extension of time filed by the Bosch defendants. The judge-rapporteur rejected Bosch's request, finding that a non-redacted version of Valeo's 15 June 2026 filing had been deposited in the CMS simultaneously with the redacted version, and that Bosch had failed to exercise due diligence in accessing it. The court ruled that the deadlines under R.29(d) RdP run from 15 June 2026.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Delhi High Court - Orders. Understanding the court's reasoning in Pernod Ricard India Private Limited vs Accord Distillers And Brewers Pvt Ltd is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Travellers Exchange Corporation LimitedvsCelebrities Management Private Limited
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a dispute over territorial jurisdiction concerning a suit for trademark infringement and passing off. The defendant challenged the court's authority, arguing that since both parties had connections to Mumbai, the case should have been filed there based on precedents like Sanjay Dalia. However, the court ultimately held that the interpretation of Sections 62 and 134 of the Trademarks Act, conferring 'additional jurisdiction,' is distinct from the general provisions of Section 20 of the CPC, thereby upholding the court's territorial competence.
M/S.Avon Emery IndustriesvsSabko Industries
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by M/S. Avon Emery Industries against an earlier ruling that rejected its application under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The court affirmed the trial court's decision after considering arguments from both sides regarding whether the original suit included claims for trademark infringement or only passing off. Given the respondent's clarification that the suit was solely for passing off, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the lower court's order.
Rakesh Kumar Trading As M/S Sai Birbal Das FoodsvsKhilender Gupta Trading As M/S Bobby Enterprises
The Delhi High Court issued an interim order in a trademark dispute concerning the mark 'BOOM BOOM'. The court noted prima facie merit in the appellant's claim regarding the long-standing use of the trademark since 2000. Given discrepancies in the starting date of use found by the lower court, the High Court granted a stay on the District Judge's previous order while reserving further consideration of the matter.
Exxon Mobil CorporationvsMr. Bijender Kumar Trading As M/S Shri Balaji Enterprises
In a significant move to protect its brand integrity, Exxon Mobil Corporation sought an interim injunction against Mr. Bijender Kumar Trading As M/S Shri Balaji Enterprises for selling counterfeit products bearing the 'MOBIL' trademark. The Delhi High Court granted the ex-parte ad-interim injunction and authorized a Local Commissioner to search and seize the infringing goods at the defendant's premises. This order underscores the court's willingness to provide swift, robust remedies against trademark infringement and counterfeiting in the commercial sector.
M/s.Digital Securities Pvt. Ltd.vsThe Registrar of Trademarks & M/s.Kwality Ice Creams
The Madras High Court addressed an appeal challenging an order that allowed the review of a trademark registration application previously treated as abandoned for want of prosecution. The court found that while the original abandonment was based on discretion, the subsequent procedural history and lack of substantive adjudication warranted intervention. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to proceed with the application after granting both the appellant and respondent a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Facing a trademark dispute?
Arctic's TM litigation team handles ~120 trademark matters per year across India, EU, and UK. From oppositions to infringement actions, we build winning arguments from precedent.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.